Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 6885156" data-attributes="member: 177">I am taking bits out of order here, because a relevant point got raised late in the post I'm responding to, but it shold be addressed earliy in the response.This one is actually pretty easy.Doxxing to enable harassment is a problem.  However, if you release the address and name of a person *who has committed harassment* or made threats, you are now enabling proper legal action (see below).  As you've already noted, online harassment is enabled by anonymity.  Breaking that anonymity, while not sufficient, is a *required* step in addressing the issue.Um, no.  Harassment is generally *illegal*.  It is not protected speech.  For example, in my state of Massachusetts:MA General Laws, Part IV, Title I, Chapter 265:Section 43A. (a) Whoever willfully and maliciously engages in a knowing pattern of conduct or series of acts over a period of time directed at a specific person, which seriously alarms that person and would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress, shall be guilty of the crime of criminal harassment and shall be punished by imprisonment in a house of correction for not more than 2 1/2 years or by a fine of not more than $1,000, or by both such fine and imprisonment. So, what you get out of it is enabling legal action.Yeah, there's this thing we call, "punishment".  Perhaps you've heard of it.  The Rabbi mentioned above notwithstanding, our psychological sciences have not progressed to the point where we can regularly and reliably correct bad behavior through purely positive means.  We occasionally (actually, regularly) need to use some forces on bad actors that are not pleasant.  Until you can state a workable alternative, your rejection of it does not constitute constructive criticism.Can we agree that there is inadequate recourse available through legal channels at this point?  Given a justice system that is overburdened, police forces that are not trained or equipped to deal with internet issues, and those forces being largely male and unfortunately often dismissive of rape, much less harassment against women, I mean? So, in the face of inadequate legal recourse for an illegal act... you expect folks to just sit there and take it?  Are you trying to tell us that people don't have a right to self defense when the cops aren't willing or able to intervene?</blockquote>

Verification